The Travellers' Insurance Company v. Martin
| Decision Date | 08 April 1892 |
| Docket Number | 15,667 |
| Citation | 30 N.E. 1071,131 Ind. 155 |
| Parties | The Travellers' Insurance Company v. Martin |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Cass Circuit Court.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
J. C Nelson and Q. A. Myers, for appellant.
M Winfield, D. D. Dykeman, W. T. Wilson and G. C. Tabor, for appellee.
The appellee, in this case, filed her complaint in two paragraphs, against the appellant. The first paragraph was to quiet title, and the second to recover possession of the real estate.
The appellant demurred to the second paragraph of the complaint, which demurrer was overruled, and exceptions were reserved. After the ruling on the demurrer and before judgment, the court permitted the appellee to amend her complaint. Counsel for appellant discuss, with much earnestness, the sufficiency of the second paragraph of the complaint, as it was at the time of the ruling on the demurrer, and before it was amended. There is no question before this court upon this ruling. The complaint being afterwards amended, the amended paragraph supplanted, and took the place of the original paragraph. The court had the right to allow the amendment. State, ex rel., v. Hay, 88 Ind. 274; Kennedy v. Anderson, 98 Ind. 151; section 396, R. S. 1881; Burns v. Fox, 113 Ind. 205, 14 N.E. 541; Bever v. North, 107 Ind. 544, 8 N.E. 576; Town of Martinsville v. Shirley, 84 Ind. 546.
The appellee was a purchaser at tax sale, and had taken out a deed in pursuance of her purchase, and there was a recovery by the appellee for the amount due her, and a lien declared upon the land, and a decree of foreclosure entered.
The land in controversy was owned by one Williamson Dunn, at the time of the assessment for taxation, and was sold as his land.
The complaint describes, by a valid description, the land owned by Dunn at the time of the assessment, and makes no averment as to the description by which it was assessed and entered upon the tax duplicate, or tax certificate, or deed.
It is earnestly contended that under no rule of law without proper averments in the complaint, could it be shown that the lands assessed as the lands of Dunn, and sold by a different and imperfect description, were the same lands described in the complaint. In other words, that the appellee could not recover the taxes paid with penalty, and have a lien declared and foreclosed, unless the description in the tax deed and of record corresponded with the description in the complaint, and the sale declared invalid on account of some other defect; that if the description of record upon which the sale was based, and in the deed, was imperfect and different from that set out in the complaint, there must be allegations to that effect in the complaint to admit the proof. It must be remembered that the statute, section 2143, Elliott's Supplement, providing that in actions to quiet title in such cases, "if, upon the hearing of such cause, it shall appear that the complainant's title was or is invalid for any cause, such suit shall not be dismissed by the court, but the court, in cases where the tax was due and unpaid, shall ascertain the full amount of taxes and lien which the State had in such land," etc., and order the same sold therefor, is an innovation on the rules of pleading and practice. The proviso that the proceedings in such cases shall be conducted in the same manner, as near as may be practicable, in conformity with the practice in cases of foreclosure of mortgages, does not require any amendment to the complaint, but relates to the conducting of the proceedings, to the evidence and decree. There is no provision of the statute requiring any amendment to be made to the complaint to quiet title in such a case, or that it shall contain other or different averments from those necessary in the ordinary complaint to quiet title, and the statute expressly provides that if the complainant's title was or is invalid for any cause, the amount due shall be ascertained and the lien foreclosed. This applies as well to a defect in the description, as to any other defect in the steps necessary to pass a valid title. It was proper to make the proof under the allegations of the complaint. Jones v. Foley, 121 Ind. 180, 22 N.E. 987.
It is next urged and ably supported by the argument of counsel for the appellant, that the sale is void and ineffectual to transfer the lien of the State to the purchaser, for the reason, that the description is so imperfect as that it does not describe the land with reasonable certainty, and that appellee's money must be refunded out of the county treasury, and this presents the principal and important question in the case.
The policy of the tax law is to secure revenues to carry on the affairs of government, and that all property shall bear its proportion of the burden of taxation; and this policy and object of the law will not be defeated by a failure of the proper officers to enter a perfect description of the property of record, and carry such description through all the proceedings, in case of a sale of the same for taxes. The State has a like lien on all real estate for its proportion of taxes. A defective description will be ineffective to convey title, but not to transfer the lien of the State to the purchaser.
The question of the sufficiency of a description of land to transfer the lien has repeatedly been before this court, and it may now be said to be the settled law of this State, as stated in State, ex rel., v. Casteel, 110 Ind. 174, 11 N.E. 219 (186), that See authorities collected and cited in State, ex rel. v. Casteel, supra. This same...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Travelers' Ins. Co. v. Martin
... ... B. MCCONNELL, Judge.Action by Sina Martin against the Travelers' Insurance Company to quiet title and to recover possession of certain real estate. Plaintiff was a purchaser ... ...